September 13, 2018

I've come to the conclusion that a big part of being a spiritual person is thinking clearly.

(When I say "spiritual," I don't mean religious or supernatural; I mean finding meaning in life, the underlying spirit of one's life, so to speak.)

If we don't think clearly, there's a danger that our emotions, feelings, desires, intuitions, and such will lead us astray. I'm certainly not saying that thoughts are more important than other aspects of our psyche -- just that we need to find a balance between the rational and non-rational parts of ourselves.

Case in point: this You Tube video is a 24-minute example of how a deist caller to the Atheist Experience TV show is utterly unable to discuss in any sort of coherent fashion why he believes God, or any other supernatural entity, exists.

I watched the whole video, but in the first 5-10 minutes you can get a good feel for the discussion between the atheist guys and Jeff from Aptos, California.

The person who emailed me a link to the video yesterday said:

Hi Brian, I just listened to this call on the call-in program called The Atheist Experience. What is so unbelievably fascinating about this call is that the caller has absolutely no clue about what's being said.

I would go further and say he is unable to comprehend or make sense of what the hosts of the show are saying so clearly. It is like they are speaking a foreign language.

The caller is so fixated on his own viewpoint that it is impossible to have a normal conversation with him. It is the same with many of the people who comment on your blog.

I agree that many Church of the Churchless commenters display the same lack of understanding of what it means to believe in the supernatural, and not to believe in the supernatural.

Over and over, the caller, Jeff, is asked to explain why he is a deist, a believer in God. He's repeatedly asked to provide reasons, or evidence, to support his belief in God. But all of his explanations are either circular, or unresponsive.

Of course, there's no demonstrable evidence of God, or I and almost every other atheist in the world would believe in God. After all, us atheists typically are open-minded, as Don and Matt, the Atheist Experience guys, are.

As noted regularly on this blog, most recently in this post, atheism isn't a belief; it is the absence of a belief in theism, in God. Don and Matt keep pointing out that they aren't saying there is no God. Rather, they consider that because of insufficient evidence that God exists, they assume that not-believing in God is the wisest choice.

I liked how they interrupted the caller when he tried to answer their question about why he is a deist by starting out with, "But you..." They correctly said that when someone begins to answer a question about themselves with "But you...", it's clear that they aren't intent on providing an answer.

Asking an atheist to prove that there is no God is an example of how religious believers fail to think clearly. The burden of proof is on a believer, not a skeptic.

In a trial, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime. Fairly frequently, the defense won't call a single witness. Why? Because they don't have to prove that the defendant didn't commit a crime.

Likewise, an atheist doesn't have to prove that God doesn't exist. Atheists like me, and like Don and Matt, leave open the possibility that God or some other supernatural entity might exist. If there is sufficient evidence of this, we would believe. Because there isn't, we don't.

Of course, there are good reasons to believe in God, even if God doesn't exist. Here's some of them:

(1) It feels good to believe that death isn't the end of us, but the beginning of an afterlife.(2) It feels good to be part of a religious community, given the social support that comes with this.(3) It feels good to be provided a moral code, rather than having to decide what is right and wrong on our own.(4) It feels good to consider that we're part of a "chosen people," instead of just being an ordinary person.(5) It feels good to believe that a divine power is guiding your life.

Here's the thing though: just because something makes us feel good doesn't mean it is true. Fantasies can be fun.

I regularly get comments on this blog along the lines of, "Brian, why are you trying to take away an important source of support for people, their belief in God?" My answer: "I'm not trying to do this. What I'm trying to do is learn the truth about God and supernaturalism in general."

For me, the arguments in favor of believing in God or the supernatural are weak, too weak for me to accept. Yes, I used to believe in not only God, but in the existence of living masters, or gurus, who essentially were God in human form. Now I don't believe in either.

However, since I used to believe, I understand the appeal of believing. Life is hard. The Buddha got it right when he taught that life is suffering. We all need shoulders to lean on. I get why most people in the world believe in God and the supernatural. This feels good.

There's nothing wrong, and a lot right, with feeling good. I'm simply saying that feeling good because of a belief in God is one thing, and that belief being true is a very different thing.

Science was mentioned in the Atheist Experience video as being our best way of determining what is true. For sure. Here's a 4-minute video in praise of science that's well worth watching.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hi Osho
I'd stated

"Yes the true Saints are superhuman by definition. But they can do anything they choose. They choose to live as human beings and don't like to be treated as gods. Those are true saints."

Then you replied:
"Sar bachan - the original textbook of radha swami

bachan 9 makes it crystal clear and leaves no room for interpretation.

in the highest region (which by definition a saint has attained) there is no trace of desire

those who reach there CANNOT FALL."

Yes and no, Osho.

I don't think you understand what Swami Shiv Dayal Singh wrote. They don't have to come back again. They choose to come here. And for that they take on Karma.

Whatever karma they take on they must burn here. For the very reason you stated, it's Sinchit.

But it can be anything. It can be a "fall"..Anything they choose.

You wrote:

"this is a whole different point being made by charan singh.

He is just saying that its blind faith till you reach there, he is not denying that status of a saint."

No Osho, he is telling you that you should not infer anything you havn't confirmed for yourself.

It's all self deception until you see it for yourself. So to presume He is God, to depict Him in that way without having seen it is just self deception. It's actually trying to be God, perfect, at some level.

I understand it isn't an easy point.
But if you follow what Master said, then you won't even presume to teach such a thing that you have not yet experienced. You will take Him as your friend and helper.

Otherwise you are actually violating his request.

I don't think Maharaji could be any clearer about this;

""Sister, even if we say our master is God, we are just deceiving ourselves. We want intellectually to think that he is God, but unless we experience him within, we can never say he's God""

And Osho, these aren't vows.

In Christianity, you must take a vow that Jesus is God.

There is no such vow like that in Sant Mat.

It's not actually part of the teachings. It's just a report from others.

But our Master teaches us not to be presumptuous.

Just as Baba Ji said also.

As for Maharaji, yes, he may have said something like "Ladies, please stop that..."

No new teachings.

If the Master must fall, so it will happen.

But most importantly, until we get to His level, we should not PRESUME He is anything more than a good friend.

Because doing that, people make all sorts of excuses for misbehavior, not just on the part of the Master but on their own part as well.

I go with Brian: When you see it, then you can believe it.
Even then, test it thoroughly.

Osho, it's not worth debating. Go with what you know, put the theory aside.

In all the time I spent with Charan Singh he was a calm, dignified gentleman. He would not say something insensitive and coarse like, "ladies, knock it off". He said, "C'mon bitches, get real. Cool it."

My comment above at 10:52 PM was in response to a comment by Osho which was removed (in fact a whole series of his comments were removed). So, out of context, my comment may appear a little strange and off the wall. Let me clarify: Charan would have said to some women calling him "Lord", "You're a bunch of dumb-ass bitches pulling this kind of shit. Cut the crap and get real. Jesus! What's the matter with you people?"

' It's not actually part of the teachings. It's just a report from others.'

You commented

" WRONG.

The RSSB books aka the teachings, are full of references to the godhood of gurus. "

I see the confusion.
Christians must take a vow and publicly claim that Jesus is God and they will have no other.

In Sant Mat we don't do that. We take four vows:

1. Engage in the practice of meditation with the goal / commitment / honest effort to put in 2 1/2 hours per day (10% of our time).

2. Eat a lacto vegetarian diet.

3. Don't do recreational drugs, don't drink alcohol.

4. Lead a clean moral life.

That's it.

In the books you will find the saints of all ages praised.

But you will also find in the teachings, and as cited above, that at our level it is impossible to know. We are at the bottom of a mountain looking up and unable to gage the altitude of our teacher (or anyone else for that matter) so we should regard the Master as a good friend. In time and through our meditation practice, our ability to understand deepens, and we can make our own decision about our Master.

Those are the teachings in the books.
And there is no vow where we proclaim anything else. In fact Maharaji claimed calling the Master God so was just self deception. Sawan Singh said much the same.

Now what is different is the influence of culture upon the actual practice of the Path. An organization arises around the Guru, and people develop rules and superstitious beliefs to maintain and grow their own status in that organization. At that point the teachings are lost to a religion.

Otherwise, Jesse, I happen to love your wry and sharp humor.

So if you will please make the same criticism as a witty joke I shall accept it as more valuable than any literal truth.

I really do appreciate your effort to understand how the whole Sant Sat Guru thing works.

But unfortunately at our level we can't.
The teachings tell us the Guru takes on Karma.

You are trying to rationalize just what sort of Karma that might be.

I agree that in my judgment no Sant Sat Guru would violate their own vows.

Especially since they teach us that generally the Lord doesn't like to break his / her own laws.

So all we can do is conjecture. And I don't see the point in that. Because whether your reasoning or mine is better is nothing like witnessing truth for ourselves.

If you judge Baba Ji as a law breaker all the teachings in the world will hardly matter. If your heart, gut and mind come together on that, you have your truth.

Neither you nor I can know even what is going on in each other's head. And we can respect that.

We can know the facts of the matter and draw an adult conclusion for ourselves. If you give it your best it can't be wrong. It might turn out to be mistaken, but if you give it your sincere best, it's up to God to bring you up through to the Truth.

However, we must do our part.. Investigate with an open mind. Seek corroborating evidence. Withhold final judgment until the standard of objective fact has been met.

These seem to me to be the far more important teachings. And I think we can agree on them. They do the least harm and assure our time here isn't wasted.

Since the Gurinder scandal got going strong this blog has become very busy and it is getting hard for me to find things. Sometimes I forget where I made a comment and never know if anyone made a reply or not.

Using the 'back' button as you suggested helped me find the comment Osho made:

"The friend who brought me to the path fourty years ago shared this story. When Maharaji visited America in the 1960's he walked past two older ladies with scarves over their heads bowing and calling him Lord. As he passed he said, "ladies, knock it off."

I don't believe that story at all, as that is not Charan's style.
I cannot imagine him saying "knock it off"

unless of course its paraphrased in a big way"

--No, I wasn't in a bad mood. My comment was a lame attempt at humor in regard to the above. I feel Charan was a dignified gentleman and would likely never speak like that. Hence, my "joke".

If anyone feels like trying to figure out what we're talking about, don't bother. It's not worth it.

Yes but they also teach that you should only believe what your inner experience tells you. And they also teach they it isn't necessary to believe they in order to follow the path. In fact Maharaji said wanting to believe it could be just self self deception.

Another part of the RS tradition that is equally ridiculous is their claim that they are the sole gatekeepers of inner experience and that other religions either are mired in superstition and ritual, highly limited in their upward mobility in terms of mystic attainment, or they lost the REAL meaning of their religion. And the REAL meaning just happens to be everything RS teaches.

Until I left and started paying some attention I didn't realize that most religions still teach much of the inner stuff. You just have to ask.

I wonder what would happen if a satsangi saw Jesus inside their head. Should they ignore him? Since we're supposedly incapable of discerning real from fake, why should some inner visions be trusted over others for any reason except that the vision matches the description in our preferred book?

There is a rich tradition of mystic literature down through the ages, including the writings of Jesus, that references the Holy Sound, the Word, the LOGOS, which is the Spirit that can be heard.

If you happen to have had that experience, it all makes sense. It's not the property of Sant Mat at all. It's a physical fact built into every human being, and that is the true Sant Mat.

Is it a spiritual fact? It is a blissful fact, an intense, shattering and ecstatic experience attended with a series of ever deepening and louder sounds, until you hear the thunderous reverbration of a huge bell, as if a bell were so large it could vibrate with the depth of a speeding train. So loud, it can be painful; and then shocking peals of light, so bright they can hurt.

And then the pull through vast regions of stars, explosions of multi-colored lights, then regions of utter and frightening darkness, along an arc that is terrifying in its size and scope.

Difficult to describe. Starts as a whistle or a wind.

These experiences will continue to be recorded because they actually happen.

They must be part of the physiology of the human being.

But there they are, for those who are given that gift.

I'm not sure you can "make it happen" on your own if it isn't already there for you.

But I'm not sure it's "divine" except that it feels that way.

So, add culture to it and you get these incredibly consistent reports.

But having no experience of this, naturally it appears like someone is trying to make something look the same that comes from different cultures.

They are describing something real, that is experienced within.

I can say that much.

If it's hallucination, it is something built into several people, and which they can gain control and amazing bliss from.

When Jesus said that those born of the Spirit were the wind itself, the inner wind that has no location in this world, or when Rumi said he listened to the reed flute of the soul, or Socrates (in Plato) said he hears the flute of the mystic and it is all he listens to now; when Tennyson said that the Spirit has a voice which we should listen to...all the same thing:

"Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O Lord, in the light of thy countenance.
16 In thy name shall they rejoice all the day: and in thy righteousness shall they be exalted."
Psalm 89:15-16

"29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel The Lord our God is one Lord"
Mark 12:29

This only looks this way from the perspective of someone who has this experience. They say "Oh, that's what I experienced!"

Anyone else would think these things are entirely unrelated.

So you are destined to move forward on the basis of your experience, and your capacity to reason only within that experience, including what you have learned to trust as factual information.

And that's OK. Everyone has their own destiny.

As for seeing Jesus, Rumi, they are all there, including your Master....

It's yet to be shown that all these religions were about worshipping sounds. This again is RSSB pretending that they have the TRUE knowledge of every religion while everyone else is lost and knows nothing.

I repeated the propaganda myself for a decade. Still own a John Davidson book. Not convinced its true even if some people claim they hear sounds and see faces. And I'm skeptical that seeing and hearing those things means what you want it to.

Maybe satan puts those things in you to give you false hope. You'd have zero way to know.

But if it can be Kal, why not satan? What's the difference other than that one is Jewish and the other is super cool trendy Indian spirituality?

Even by your own religion's standards it's possible that you're being deceived by all these fancy lights and sounds. If you happened to choose the wrong gurus, you're pretty much screwed according to sant mat.

I agree with Spence that inner sound, light and Guru experiences are baked into human physiology, and occur across cultures / religions.

Let's dive into each one...

Re: sound experience, perhaps this is tinnitus?

The condition produces train, flute and bell sounds and can be painful. Plus, I can totally understand how people in the past would think these mysterious sounds are divine and build a narrative around them.

Any bliss experienced could be due to the positive effects of single-minded focus along with the sense of accomplishment that would naturally come with feeling you're one of the chosen few to hear God's rock band. ;-)

Re: seeing colors inside, this phenomenon may be due to "phosphenes" as described in the below article. The phenomenon could also be a kind of lucid dreaming. When I was a young kid, in bed, I'd close my eyes and go through veils of color and ultimately land in some "dream place" that I felt like visiting. There was no Guru there, and this was long before my initiation.

Lastly, re: seeing a Guru inside, perhaps the seer is the one manifesting the vision (vs. the Guru manifesting it).

I've been at Sant Mat initiations where a couple attendees saw Christ inside, and another saw Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. We each tend to see who we believe in and spent time focusing on. I can attest to this. When I'm really, really into a girl, I tend to see her face inside, in my dreams, etc.

All this being said, I am not trying to degrade anyone's belief. If your practice makes you more loving and balanced, then do it.

I too enjoy light and sound meditation, and think the Sant Mat practice yields a lot of benefits (diet, meditation, self reflection, sense of purpose, etc.). However, the lofty unsubstantiated stories satsangis tell are dangerous in that they can raise the ego/pride and make the path look totally fraudulent. People who are benefiting may quit. Kirpal Singh warned people not to tell such stories.

Note to 777: Synchronicities and coincidences do not count as proof of Gurinder's divinity. Everyone experiences these, and yes, they can be wonderful.

Thank you to Brian and all of the commentators for the content and discussion. Fascinating stuff.

I’ve also come across the view -- probably expressed here in this blog of Brian’s itself, but I’m not sure, it may have been some place else -- that many of these so-called spiritual experiences (that all religions, starting from the most ancient to the more recent ones, and originating in whichever particular geography, are ultimately based on) might be the result of epileptic seizures.

To my knowledge there is no comprehensive study of this nature -- and of course, my own knowledge is far from all-encompassing, so that I could be mistaken in thinking that there is no such study, already! -- but it would be fascinating to have a proper, rigorous study along these lines. Where the connection of spiritual experiences (especially of the kind that religions are based on, like bushes catching fire and pronouncing solemn commandments, and imagining that one is God’s uniquely endowed son, and imagining that the Archangel Gabriel visits one in desert caves and dictates divine texts to one, and these celestial lights and sounds that are so widely discussed in this blog, and so forth) with natural causes like tinnitus (and these phosphenes you speak of, and with epilepsy, and also other possible causes like schizophrenia for instance, and obviously drug-induced hallucinations as well, not to forget hallucinations brought about by starvation/fasting) are explored, properly and with rigor.

It would be fascinating to see what some such properly rigorous study/research might have to say.

As for lucid dreaming, that you also speak of, that’s another very interesting rabbit hole, well worth burrowing into and exploring a bit. (And I would guess that research into sleep is more widespread, from a medical perspective, than research into meditation and spirituality and prophetic revelations, so that it is quite possible that this at least is something we already know about, properly and scientifically.)

Some questions that it would be interesting to know the answers to : Why is it that only some people experience lucid dreams, while most don’t? Can lucid dreaming be consciously induced? (If nothing else, I’m sure it would be vastly entertaining to be able to dream whatever one wants to dream, and to be able to navigate one’s way consciously across dreams.) Are lucid dreams any worse (or any better) than regular dreams, physiologically speaking, or are they no different from regular dreams in terms of how this affects the brain’s rest as well as assimilation of information?

You wrote:
"However, the lofty unsubstantiated stories satsangis tell are dangerous in that they can raise the ego/pride and make the path look totally fraudulent. People who are benefiting may quit. Kirpal Singh warned people not to tell such stories."

I disagree heartily with this statement. Let me explain. Anyone who speaks to their experience is bringing that experience out, to light. Whatever it is, good, bad, or otherwise, no one should censor their experience.

Now, how to deal with someone else's experience? As their subjective experience.

You don't need to find explanations. And the reason is that this would all be conjecture.

I don't expect anyone else to think my experiences reflect Spirit.

They reflect something I experience as holy, divine, beautiful, ecstatic.

Those are my treasures.

From your perspective, they can't be anything other than someone else's subjective experiences. But you can honor that someone has something they consider sacred and holy. That's a good thing.

We should all have something we love more than ourselves, that in love and pursuit, whether science, or art, or meditation, we are raised from our daily experience into a more transcendent experience, one that gives us peace, harmony, sense of oneness.

I think if Kirpal said we shouldn't express it, I would rather claim that everyone who hears it should honor it as the subjective but sacred personal experience of someone else.

It doesn't have to have objective reality in your terms in order to be of the highest value to the person who experienced it.

You may then share what is sacred to YOU...walk in the garden, watching a sunset, the embrace of your child....

As for objective reality, until you experience these exact things the saints have described, you are only conjecturing.

So, your comments are of very little value in conjecture. Unless you are practicing so that you may also duplicate such experiences for your own personal investigation.

Should you be able to duplicate that series of beautiful sounds that transport you across the stars, then you are in a position to comment intelligently upon them.

Otherwise, just accept them as subjective, personal and sacred to the person who reports them.

And let's make it easy for everyone to report their personal experiences in this way, so that we avoid censorship of things we don't understand or experience....yet.

And so we actually recognize all sorts of holy and sacred personal experiences, whatever they are. Not just one small set from one group of mystics. But the much larger range of the Human Subjective Experience that is equally holy and sacred. That should be a celebration, not a censorship. Maybe the world would be a better place if folks realized that no one can own these things. They belong to the human race, and quite varied, yet holy, sacred, divine.

I will tell you that for Brian, the Truth is holy. It is Sacred. He will allow nothing to stand between himself and any factual Truth.

He has his spirituality firmly grounded in something that is eternal.

So, let's celebrate the entire range of experience, knowing we each of us will only have our own.

Brian's truth is holy, sacred, factual but its not everyone's Truth. How can it be the same for everyone. We all have different experiences in life, we are born with different genetics, we are programmed from birth, we are influenced by the country we live in and the people we mix with and what we are taught to be real. So what is this Truth?

When it comes to very personal spiritual or out of body experiences these are just as real as what we are experiencing in this life, in this human form, on this planet. Maybe everything is illusionary - Maya - the power by which the universe becomes manifest, the illusion or appearance of the phenomenal world.

Quote Spencer : I disagree heartily with this statement. Let me explain. (…) Now, how to deal with someone else's experience? As their subjective experience. (…)

Hello, Spence.

That bit you quoted wasn’t from my comment at all. You were responding to, and disagreeing with, not what I said, but someone else who’s logged in here with a moniker not dissimilar to mine. In fact, my two short comments here on this thread yesterday were in response to the thoughts expressed by that same “avid” poster.

I don’t think I disagree with your POV. I have no issues at all with your discussing your subjective experiences, as long as we’re all clear that this is subjective. Once a claim to some objective truth is made, that is when the burden of evidence arises. Since, as you say, you make no such claims, I don’t see that you necessarily need to back up with evidence anything you describe as your wholly subjective experience. I don’t see that you actually carry any burden of evidence yourself. (Unless, that is, one deconstructs this line of thinking one further notch, and disbelieves that you actually did have these experiences at all. I, for one, have no reason to that!)

Of course, in as much as you’re voluntarily presenting your experiences here for discussion, I suppose I (or anyone else who has a mind to) may end up actually discussing those experiences, either with you or amongst ourselves, and presenting our own views on them. As for whether one does this exploration of another’s subjective with respect and sympathy, or not : that I suppose would depend entirely on the person who’s doing this exploring. I personally would not, in the normal course, ever dream of disrespecting another’s feelings or experiences (indeed, I wouldn’t, personally, in the normal course, disrespect another person at all, irrespective of whether they had any kinds of feelings or experiences, or shared them with me, or not). I personally think that it is okay to not engage with others if one doesn’t want to ; but that if one does choose to engage with others (and especially with others’ cherished feelings and experiences), then it makes sense, in the normal course, to do this with sensitivity and with respect. This is no more than plain everyday decency, the kind of thing one tends to take for granted in one’s day-to-day life without necessarily even thinking about it ; and to do otherwise, unilaterally and without reasonable provocation, would IMO be asshattery, plain and simple, and probably indicative of a damaged personality, a damaged personality that is perhaps the result of a damaged life.

So sure, I guess I agree with the essence of what you’ve said in that comment of yours, addressed to me. Sure, I’m with you when you propose that we “celebrate the entire range of experience”, why not?

Spencer, on re-reading, just now, your comment (that I'd responded to yesterday), this portion of what you'd said there :

Quote Spencer : Maybe the world would be a better place if folks realized that no one can own these things.

Do you, then, wholly discount the proprietorship, so to say, that some shaktipatic Gurus (which would include RSSB's GIHF) -- not just a teacher, but someone who can (allegedly) channel forces to extend "Grace" to the disciple -- allegedly exercise over their particular teachings?

As you may have guessed, I ask this half in jest. But only half. I ask this of you, specifically, because you'd been, until recently, wholly sold on the whole RSSB story. Following on your disillusionment with GSD, do you still accept the especial position (way beyond the scope of just teacher-ship) that the Guru occupies in traditions like RSSB?

You asked
"Do you, then, wholly discount the proprietorship, so to say, that some shaktipatic Gurus (which would include RSSB's GIHF) -- not just a teacher, but someone who can (allegedly) channel forces to extend "Grace" to the disciple -- allegedly exercise over their particular teachings?"

I'm not sure that RSSB teachings give the Master anything outside of the skills necessary to connect the soul with the Spirit and provide adequate instruction.

Sadh Gurus duly appointed by a true Master may also give the initiation, even though they have not actually completed the journey.

All other commentary and praise are contextual, and neither consist of the practice nor the vows.

In fact the Saints themselves say we should only consider the Master as a teacher and friend simply for the purposes of only that trust necessary to conduct the practice.

It is the practice which will yield any other true knowledge of the path. And not by a single experience, Bua consistant experience entirely under your control.

So there is the testimony of other past students, mostly those who became teachers themselves.

That's the advertising.

The actual course of instruction contains none of those attributes. The course is 100% the practice and the vows to yield optimal results.

You don't actually have to believe those testimonials to undergo initiation and to engage successfully in the meditation.

It' s only then that you will be able to discern the quality of those testimonials, which is precisely what Maharaji teaches.

Spence, as tedious as it would be, every one of those statements needs to be prefaced with something like "according to" or "in this book/by this guy who uses such titles it was said that..." Because we can't define any of the terms at all. Nobody knows what a sadhguru is, or a saint, or a master. There are no reliable or agreed on criteria for any single attribute of mysticism.

Aside from the fact that it's all obviously bullshit, you're wrong again in your interpretation of what RSSB pretty clearly prescribes. One can't undergo an experiment about deeply loving a "master." Nobody can disbelieve in someone, yet still practice bhakti of that person, which is a part of the meditation.

"Baba ji, I think you're crook, and everything you say is bullshit, but for the purposes of the mystic sciences, I'm devoting my entire life to you in love and devotion." Nonsense.

Quote Spencer : … the skills necessary to connect the soul with the Spirit and provide adequate instruction … Sadh Gurus duly appointed by a true Master may also give the initiation, even though they have not actually completed the journey …

Actually that is exactly what I was driving at.

Sure, I take your point, that it “is the practice which will yield any other true knowledge of the path”.

However, it seems from what you say that you do believe -- which is the answer to the question I’d asked of you -- that there is something more afoot here than mere instruction. You seem to believe that it would take at least a Sadh Guru to go about initiating people. That is, initiations by random people cognizant of the process won’t do.

You’d said, earlier, that “no one can own these things”. And true enough, no one can own, say, knowledge of some branch of science, or, say, the technique of playing the piano : anyone at all who actually knows these things can easily transmit this knowledge and this skill, even impersonally via recorded media messages provided such impersonal transmission were done skillfully enough. So sure, no one can “own” these things.

But when it comes to this esoteric knowledge, apparently at least a Sadh Guru, appointed by a "true Master", is necessary. That is, some random person who is familiar with these practices -- you yourself, for instance -- cannot go around, suddenly and without authorization, instructing and “initiating” others on this technique.

To that extent, then, these teachings do end up being “owned” -- perhaps entirely benevolently, and without necessarily any vested interest involved in such “ownership” -- by the “authorized” people within the path.

I hope I haven’t misinterpreted your comment in any way?

And it’s okay, I only wanted to explore further your belief about this, that’s all -- and yes, I seem to have got your answer to my question here -- without necessarily wanting to critically evaluate that belief of yours. As you say, in your earlier comment, a subjective POV that does not pretend to objective, nor seeks to impose itself on others, can simply be accepted as such, with honor and with respect. Even when one may personally not share in that POV.

Hi Appreciative!
Yes I see your point.
No one owns the creation.
But there are individuals qualified to teach, certified to teach. Some may just be teaching assistants, however much beloved by the professor who has appointed them.

And as such they must also go through their remaining lessons, however brilliant they may be.

And there are individuals qualified to be students. Admitted to the school. Some of us are better, others worse.

I am qualifed only to be a"B" student overall, and have had to retake some courses. I've graduated with my bachelor's but it took a little longer. I'm in graduate school now.

My beloved professor, noting my loquacious nature, has permitted me to share whatever I know with those around me who might be interested in enrolling, or who might be first year students asking themselves why they enrolled in this subject, or those who have for the time being dropped out (He says they are only on undergraduate sabbatical!).

Not quite, Spence, I’m afraid, going by the rest of that comment of yours.

In this comment of yours you’re basically equating spiritual instruction in RSSB to regular teaching elsewhere (of regular subjects), so that “authorization” from a “master” would be no different, in essence, than accreditation and/or authorization by some university, for instance.

And sure, if that is what you believe, then I agree with you that -- per your own beliefs about this -- these teachings are not “owned” by anyone.

However, if there is some shakitpatic element at play here -- that is, if you do believe that “Grace” does play a role, Grace that only a bona fide master can bestow -- then the teachings aren’t quite as free : in that case they’re “owned”, however benevolently, by those who do posses this power to transmit “Grace”.

Again, I’m not questioning your belief, nor even wanting to critique it here. But I am interested in knowing what it is you might believe now, given your recent change of opinion about GSD -- always provided you’re comfortable sharing this here.

Do you, then, believe there is some shaktipatic element involved in the RSSB path, some transmission of Grace that cannot work without a bona fide master (no matter how clear the teachings themselves)? That is, do you at all believe that the Guru can act as an all-important conduit for channeling some higher power or Grace, which function of the Guru goes beyond (and is wholly separate from) mere teacher-ship? Or do you think that simply teaching the content (the theory and the practice) is all there is to it?

You asked
"That is, do you at all believe that the Guru can act as an all-important conduit for channeling some higher power or Grace, which function of the Guru goes beyond (and is wholly separate from) mere teacher-ship? Or do you think that simply teaching the content (the theory and the practice) is all there is to it?"

Actually it is very much like the academic model I proposed, but some explanation is warranted.

A great Teaching Assistant who has a mastery of the subject and is a good tutor will shape their lesson to what they see the student needs. There is indeed a connection there. Psychologically, that works on several levels.

I do believe that the Master at best connects the disciple to what is in themselves already. They cannot add anything to that. The entirety of God and Spirit is within the student, just as all the power there is for a student to learn is within them. But of course a good teacher makes all the difference.

Is there a psychic connection of some kind? I don't believe that is essential nor verifiable. And the Masters tell us two different messages. First, so the power is within you. Second, the Matter connects you to that. Psychic and Spiritual terminology may simply beculture bound terms for something very real.

But there is most certainly a sub conscious connection, very real, which has a very powerful impact on drawing our attention, at a subconscious level to start, to something deep and real within the human brain.

What triggers that connection? A very good teacher who understands these dynamics and can help us rehearse the Behaviors that trigger those unconscious mechanisms.

When you look at your best friend you are seeing the image constructed by your brain. Your brain modifies that image all the time. You are seeing what you brain places before you. And so many adjustments take place without your knowledge. All of that is subconscious.

You drive a car and have little awareness of all that is going on under the hood, inside the engine.

What influences that image? Even emotion, even associations with other people, memories, it all confess together in what your brain presents to you. And what you do not wish to see, often, is deleted before you get the image in your conscious view.

If course your brain is working from what it receives, visually and in other ways.

The path of meditation is a means to become aware of these things, their flaws as well as their truths; to integrate and to make your experience wholistic and purposeful, functional and insightful.

The great power within you is real. The great compassion within you is real.

Finally, AP
If you firmly believe, given your culture and belief system, that the Master is within you, that's where your attention will turn. And when your attention turns there, your awareness of what is there will expand. Your level of love for your Master, functionally, affects how much you are going to remain focused internally, and push away distraction. Degree of love = degree of undisturbed attention. And that determines your progress.

The mind, physiologically, is fascinating. You can become aware of things simply focusing on them, if you focus is on something that is actually there. Like turning on the light in a room. Your attention on it alone, undisturbed, gradually turns up the dimmer switch. Love and attention are natural mechanisms to do it.

I understand : you aren't plugging, yourself, for a channeling-of-Grace explanation. At the same time, I appreciate the nuances you touch one, about not just transmitting the teachings properly, but about properly fashioning the teachings in order to suit the individual requirements of individual students/disciples.

Given that I myself aspire to the sort of realization you speak of (while at the same time refusing to believe in any of it until I have myself experienced it), I find your heart-felt words inspiring.